Final Recommendations - South West Region
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Final recommendations - South West region Contents 1. Initial/revised proposals overview p1 8. Sub-region 3: Bristol p17, recommendations p17 2. Number of representations received p3 9. Sub-region 4: Cornwall, Devon, Isles of Scilly, Plymouth and Torbay p18, recommendations p20 3. Campaigns p4 10. Sub-region 5: Gloucestershire, and South Gloucestershire p20, recommendations p24 4. Major issues p5 11. Sub-region 6: North Somerset p24, recommendations p25 5. Final recommendations p7 12. Sub-region 7: Swindon: p26, recommendations p27 6. Sub-region 1: Bath and North East Somerset, and Somerset 13. Appendix A p12, recommendations p13 7. Sub-region 2: Bournemouth, Dorset, Poole, and Wiltshire p14, recommendations p16 Initial/revised proposals overview 1. The South West region was allocated 53 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of two from the existing allocation. In formulating the initial and revised proposals the Commission decided to construct constituencies using the following sub-regions: Table 1A - Constituency allocation Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under initial Allocation under revised proposals proposals Bath and North East 7 7 7 Somerset, and Somerset Bristol 4 4 4 Cornwall, Devon, Isles of 18 17 17 Scilly, Plymouth, and Torbay Bournemouth, Dorset, 13 12 12 Poole, and Wiltshire Gloucestershire, and South 9 9 9 Gloucestershire North Somerset 2 2 2 1 Swindon 2 2 2 2. Under the initial proposals nine of the existing 55 constituencies were unchanged. The revised proposals retained 11 of the existing constituencies unchanged. Under both the initial and revised proposals it was proposed to have four constituencies that crossed county boundaries. We proposed one constituency which crossed both the Cornwall and Devon county boundaries, combining the towns of Bideford, Bude and Launceston to form a constituency of that name. In Dorset and Wiltshire we combined the towns of Warminster and Shaftesbury in a constituency of that name to form a cross-county constituency. We combined electors from the north-east of the County of Somerset with electors from Bath, and North East Somerset in one constituency called North East Somerset. Finally, we proposed that some electors from the County of Gloucestershire were combined with electors from the District of South Gloucestershire to form the Dursley, Thornbury and Yate constituency. 3. In response to the consultation on the initial proposals and secondary consultation, the Commission received just over 2,000 representations regarding the South West region. These representations commented on most parts of the region, with the main issues being: ● The proposed Bideford, Bude and Launceston (‘Devonwall’) cross-county constituency: respondents objected to the inclusion of wards from Cornwall in a cross-county constituency with Devon. ● The constituencies in the Bournemouth and Poole area: respondents objected to changes made to the existing pattern of constituencies in Bournemouth and Poole. 2 ● The constituencies in Gloucestershire: respondents opposed the division of Stroud between three constituencies, the inclusion of the two Quedgeley wards in the Stroud constituency and the inclusion of the seven southernmost wards from Stroud in the proposed Dursley, Thornbury and Yate constituency. They also objected to the inclusion of the Borough of Cheltenham ward of Springbank in the proposed Tewkesbury constituency, and change of constituency name from Forest of Dean to West Gloucestershire. 4. In considering the evidence received, the Commission altered 49% of constituencies in the South West region: five of these constituencies were only subject to a change of name. Number of representations received 5. In the South West region, the Commission received a total of 952 representations during consultation on the revised proposals, bringing the total number of representations for this region to 2,971. This number included all those who gave evidence at the public hearings. There were also a number of duplicate representations within this total, as well as representations that made general comments that did not have any bearing on the substance of the initial proposals. Table 1B - Representations received Type of respondents Consultation on revised proposals Total number of representations Member of Parliament 6 48 Official political party 5 16 response 3 Peer from House of Lords 0 0 Local councillor 43 197 Local authority 3 19 Parish or town council 11 71 Other organisation 8 64 Member of the public 876 2,556 Total 952 2,971 6. While many of the representations can be categorised as opposing the Commission’s revised proposals, there has been a degree of support for certain constituencies across the whole region. These include, but are not limited to, both Bournemouth constituencies, Poole, Christchurch, Cheltenham, and within Wiltshire. Campaigns 7. No campaigns were received for the South West region during consultation on the revised proposals. During the previous consultations the Commission received three campaigns. 4 Major issues 8. Major issues that drew objection in response to the revised proposals were as follows: Bath and North East Somerset, and Somerset ● Somerton and Frome constituency: opposition to Frome remaining in its current constituency of Somerton and Frome. Bournemouth, Dorset, Poole, and Wiltshire ● West Wiltshire, and North Wiltshire constituencies: objection to dividing the Parish of Box between these constituencies. ● Mid Dorset and Christchurch constituencies: opposition to splitting the town of Verwood between these constituencies. Bristol ● There were no major issues that drew objection in this sub-region. 5 Gloucestershire, and South Gloucestershire ● Tewkesbury and Gloucester constituencies: objection to the Gloucester City wards of Elmbridge and Longlevens being included in the Tewkesbury constituency instead of the Gloucester constituency. ● Dursley, Thornbury and Yate, and Stroud constituencies: opposition to the wards of Cam West, Cam East, and Dursley being included in the proposed Dursley, Thornbury and Yate constituency. Cornwall, Devon, Isles of Scilly, Plymouth, and Torbay ● Exeter, and East Devon constituencies: both opposition to and support for the Exeter City ward of St. Loyes being included in the Exeter constituency, rather than in East Devon where it is currently located. ● Bideford, Bude and Launceston constituency: opposition to this proposed cross-county constituency as it combines wards from the counties of Devon and Cornwall. North Somerset ● There were no major issues that drew objection in this sub-region. Swindon ● There were no major issues that drew objection in this sub-region. 6 Final recommendations 9. In light the of the representations and evidence received we have considered whether the revised proposals should be changed. Table 2 - Sub-regions used Initial proposals Revised proposals Final recommendations Bath and North East Somerset, and Bath and North East Somerset, and Bath and North East Somerset, and Somerset Somerset Somerset Bristol Bristol Bristol Cornwall, Devon, Isles of Scilly, Cornwall, Devon, Isles of Scilly, Cornwall, Devon, Isles of Scilly, Plymouth Plymouth and Torbay Plymouth and Torbay and Torbay Bournemouth, Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth, Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth, Dorset, Poole and Wiltshire Wiltshire Wiltshire Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire Gloucestershire Gloucestershire North Somerset North Somerset North Somerset Swindon Swindon Swindon 7 10.The final recommendations have been formulated on the same sub-regions used as the initial and revised proposals. 11. We received an alternative whole region scheme proposing substantial changes to Dorset that included two split ward solutions; splitting the South Gloucestershire District ward of Boyd Valley and the North Dorset District ward of Hill Forts. This counter-proposal suggested that the Shaftesbury area is combined with Salisbury to form a constituency, rather than Warminster (going across east/west). This proposal also substantially reconfigured the Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch constituencies, even though we had received substantial support for the revised proposals for this region. 12.We also received a counter-proposal suggesting that Hampshire be included in a sub-region with Wiltshire, crossing the South West/South East regional boundary in an attempt to keep the ward of Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams in the South East region constituency of Test Valley. Commissioners should note paragraph 20 (page 6) of the ‘Guide to the 2018 Review of Parliamentary constituencies’, which states that there would need to be ‘very compelling reasons’ for the Commission to depart from the region based approach to the current review. 13.All other representations have not proposed alternative sub-regions. 8 Table 3 - Headline numbers for schemes Schemes Constituencies - ward changes Local authorities in Constituencies constituency crossing a county boundary Number Number One-ward Two-to-five Six-ward One Two Three Two Three wholly changed by change ward and more or unchanged rewarding change change more only Initial proposals 9 4 10 13 17 32 15 6 4 0 Revised proposals 10 4 10 15 14 32 15 6 4 0 Final 11 4 10 14 14 32 15 6 4 0 recommendations 14.Under the final recommendations 11 of the existing constituencies are unchanged. As in the initial and revised proposals, four constituencies are proposed to cross county boundaries. 9 More detailed breakdown of